WORLD-RENOWNED HEBREW SCHOLAR DESTROYS OLD EARTH THEORY

Posted on by

In this in-depth interview, Dr. Bill Barrick—Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew at The Master’s Seminary — unpacks what the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 really says. Does the Bible itself teach a young earth? Is the day-age theory compatible with the Hebrew grammar? What about the Gap Theory, mytho-history, and functional creation views made popular by scholars like William Lane Craig, Michael Heiser, and John Walton? We dig deep into the Hebrew of בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים (“In the beginning God created”), explore whether Genesis 1:1 is a heading or a historical statement, and discuss how the text itself answers questions about the firmament, cosmology, and biblical authority.

00:00 Intro 02:08 Discussion on Young Earth Creationism 09:01 Old Earth Creationism and Personal Journey 12:09 Day-Age Theory and Hebrew Grammar 22:05 Gap Theory Examined 32:21 William Lane Craig and Mytho history? 37:05 Poetry vs. Historical Narrative 41:38 Analysing Genesis 1:1-3 57:11 Primitive Cosmology and Metaphors 01:04:42 The Light Before the Sun

HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR WORLDVIEW?

Posted on by

Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It helps us understand our purpose. Further, our worldview determines our ethics, our values, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us answer the big questions of life: How did I get here? How am I to live? Where do I find meaning in life? What is my ultimate destiny? It is more telling than any other aspect of our lives.

In forming our worldviews, Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. Armand Nicholi says, that we make one of two assumptions about life. The first is that we live in a godless universe; we are a product of nature that has evolved over time. This is a secular worldview that emphasizes scientific knowledge and its motto is “What do science and nature have to say?” The second assumption is that there is a supernatural intelligence who gives the universe order and life meaning. This is a spiritual worldview that is rooted in Biblical revelations. It places emphasis on spiritual truth and wisdom and its motto is: “What does God have to say about this?”

It is reasonable to conclude that every person has an opinion on God and spiritual reality, even if it is a belief that He is non-existent. We all have a faith view of reality and it trickles down into our lives and influences the choices we make. One of the great flaws in our human character is we stubbornly hold on to our beliefs because they generally reflect how we want life to be rather than how life actually is.
For this reason, evidence does not seem to matter.

A great example of this is Dr. Francis Collins. He is most noted for having been chosen to chair the Human Genome Project, ENCODE where, in 2003, he led an international collaboration of two thousand scientists in sequencing the human genome. More recently, he was appointed by President Obama to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Clearly, he is a prominent scientist, but what is perhaps even more interesting is his spiritual journey.

He began this journey as an atheist. In his third year of medical school, while he was working in the hospital, he was attending a woman who had exhausted her options for treatment. She suffered from a heart condition and was going to die soon. Collins was moved by this kind and faithful woman. She had a
strong faith, and she shared it with him. She said, “You know, I’m ready to go. Don’t worry about me.”
And then she said, “Dr. Collins, you’ve been so kind to listen to me and care for me and listen to me share with you about my faith. Tell me about your faith. Tell me what you believe.”
Collins later wrote:
“Nobody had ever asked me that question before, not like that, not in such a simple, sincere way. I realized I didn’t know the answer. I felt uneasy. I could feel my face flushing. I wanted to get out of there. The ice was cracking under my feet. All of a sudden, by this simple question, everything was a muddle. Collin’s began to wonder if he was an atheist because he had chosen the position of reason or because it was the answer he wanted. Finally, it came to him: “As a scientist, I had always insisted on collecting rigorous data before drawing a conclusion. And yet, in matters of faith, I had never collected any data at all. I didn’t know what I had rejected. So, I decided that I should be a little better grounded in my atheism. I better find out what this is all about. So, I challenged a patient of mine who was a Methodist minister. And, after listening to my questions and realizing that I was not dealing with a very full deck of information, he suggested that I read the Gospel of John, which I did…I found the scripture to be interesting, puzzling, and not at all what I had thought faith was about… then I began to read C.S. Lewis and realized there was a great depth of thinking and reasoning that could be applied to the question
of God.” Lewis convinced him that reason and faith go hand in hand, though faith has the added component of revelation—the Bible. Collins had previously believed that Jesus and the stories of the
Bible were nothing more than mere myths. Again, as he studied the historical evidence, he was stunned at how well documented and how historically accurate the Bible is. He also saw a surprising fidelity of the transmission of the manuscripts that were passed down over the centuries. And, over time, Francis Collins,
based on the accumulation of the evidence that he observed, concluded that God exists, and that Jesus is the Son of God. He also concluded that most of the religious skeptics that he knew and that he meets today are just like he was. That is to say, they didn’t want to think about these things and never looked at any evidence, never drawing conclusions from the real evidence that was available. This is what Dr. Dallas Willard, former professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California, believed was a major problem with individuals who considered themselves to be agnostic or atheist. Willard found that so many of the students and scholars he encountered on campus and in the world were guilty of what he called “irresponsible disbelief.” These bright men and women would often choose to disbelieve in something without any significant commitment to an investigation of that disbelief by way of sound reasoning and careful examination of the evidence.

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? The revealed word of God. If you do then you need to reject evolution and its billions of years and hold to to the Biblical history and the worldwide flood of Noah’s day. It produced the billions of fossils and fossil fuels, oil and gas that evolutionists tell us took billions of years to form. The Bible tells us that to initiate the flood God broke the mantle of the earth “all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” The whole topography of the Earth was changed when God poured out His wrath upon the Earth the first time when He judged the wicked Nephilim (hybrid angel/humans) and mankind. The subsequent Ice Age was a single, rapid event triggered by post-Flood conditions. These included massive volcanic activity releasing aerosols that cooled the continents, combined with warm oceans from Flood-related heating, leading to heavy snowfall and glacier formation. The duration is typically estimated as several hundred years, with glaciers building up over the first few centuries and melting during the latter half as volcanic activity waned. This fits within the post-Flood timeline, allowing for human and animal dispersal (e.g., via land bridges from lower sea levels) before the rise of early civilizations like those in Mesopotamia around 4,000 years ago. The Tower of Babel event that formed the nations with new God given languages occurred just 200 to 300 years after the Flood and was the reason people dispersed across the world.

God has been active in His world with these dramatic events. The apostle Peter told us 2000 years ago that in the last days before Jesus returns that the world would reject God and His account of creation and Noah’s Flood as myths and suffer God’s judgement just as the ungodly did before the worldwide flood. The many fulfilled Biblical prophecies are proof God exists and His Word is truth.

“Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” 2Peter 3: 3-7

WHY BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SEE?

Posted on by

“Science unequivocally requires that all things are composed of matter and energy. Therefore, immaterial substances—such as God or the human soul—cannot exist.”

However, science itself does not provide any substantiation for the premise. After all, if science can deal only with matter and energy, it can’t possibly show that other things can’t exist. Rather, this claimed requirement is a philosophical position called materialism, and there are substantial grounds for doubting it. ‘Materialism’ in philosophy doesn’t mean striving for material goods, but the belief that matter (or mass/energy) is all there is.

Immaterial Creator of the universe

Among the reasons for rejecting materialism are the compelling arguments that support the existence of an immaterial Creator of the universe. These include the design of living things, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the evidence that it has a finite age, among other arguments.

These features of reality are best explained by the biblical teaching that God is the Creator. If these arguments are successful, materialism fails.

Humans are more than mere machines

If materialism were true, humans would consist merely of organized matter, which we have reason to doubt. The renowned atheist Richard Dawkins eloquently articulates his perspective on human nature:

On one planet [Earth], and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing, and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter.

However, this materialistic perspective faces serious philosophical and scientific challenges. If humans are reduced to purely physical objects devoid of any immaterial aspect, it becomes exceedingly difficult to explain many basic truths about human beings.

Intrinsic value

The first of these is a person’s value. Physical objects have value only because we assign value to them. They are tools, not ends in themselves. Their value is extrinsic and dependent on changeable factors. Human beings, on the other hand, possess intrinsic value merely by virtue of being human, independent of external factors. We do not lose our value even if we lose significant capabilities—declining mentally or becoming comatose, to give a couple of examples.

Christians know that our intrinsic value comes from being made in God’s image We are not merely bodies but souls that can relate to God. Yet even non-Christians will often recognize the value of human beings, whether they recognize the source of that value or apply it consistently to all people.

Without intrinsic value, it would be hard to make sense of human rights, for example. We know it’s wrong to treat people as mere objects. But the evolutionary materialism of our age insists we have emerged unaided from animals, which originally arose randomly from simple chemicals. That means that people lack souls and do not bear the image of God. In other words, they can only be mere physical objects. In such a view, the intrinsic nature of our value cannot be accounted for.

First-person perspective

Second, physical objects lack a first-person perspective. They lack consciousness and self-awareness and are incapable of having a truly subjective point of view, using the self-reflexive pronoun ‘I’. Even complex computers and robots with artificial intelligence lack real awareness.

In contrast, human beings do possess a first-person perspective. We are conscious agents, capable of not only awareness but even self-awareness and the ability to articulate our point of view. It is difficult to explain this universal experience if humans are merely physical objects.

image of brain

“DAILY, WE ENCOUNTER MENTAL STATES THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY BRAIN MATTER ALONE.”

Intentional mental states

Third, humans possess intentional mental states. ‘Intentionality’ is a technical term in philosophy that refers to the power of the mind to represent or refer to other things. That is, some mental states can be ‘of’ or ‘about’ something else. Whenever people think, believe, desire, fear, or wonder, they direct their thoughts toward a specific subject or concept. They may think about breakfast, or experience a fear of spiders, for example. Physical events by themselves are not ‘of’ or ‘about’ other things in that same sense, so what happens in our minds is not physical. Daily, we encounter mental states that cannot be explained by brain matter alone.

Human emotion and other ‘felt’ experiences

Fourth, when a person feels joyful, upset, or anxious, the brain is part of the neural circuitry that plays a role in giving that person such experiences. The brain itself, though, is not joyful, upset, or anxious; the person is. The brain is only a complex organ—a physical object with physical properties, similar in that sense to a computer. A computer might be programmed to say, “I’m sad”, but the computer would not really feel sadness. Emotions like happiness, sadness, and fear are not material entities. They can only be experienced by conscious, sentient creatures who have a non-material aspect to their being, like humans and many animals. This is evidence that we are not merely brains in bodies.

Brain research subjects

Empirical studies show results consistent with the above philosophical arguments. For example, pioneering neuroscientist Wilder Penfield conducted over 1,100 brain surgeries in which he stimulated areas of the brain while patients were awake, and noted their responses. He was able to induce bodily movements, sensations, emotions, and memories. But the patients invariably testified that the response was like a reflex, not an action they chose to do. Penfield found he could not stimulate their will. Also, he could not cause them to draw conclusions, make decisions, or even think abstract thoughts (about, say, mathematics). Such experiments suggest that it is the immaterial self which is ultimately responsible for these activities, rather than the physical brain.

IMAGE BEARERS

God developed and populated the earth, which was initially empty (“without form and void”), as described in Genesis 1:2. He executed this task with exceptional precision and skill, thereby establishing a magnificent stage upon which to showcase His most significant creative accomplishment, humankind. Not only did God reserve the best for last, but He also created humans in a manner that distinguished them from animals. According to Genesis 1:26, humans were created to have a unique relationship to God. This was accomplished through the divine plan (“let us make man”), the divine pattern (“in our image”), and the divine purpose (“let them have dominion”). The attribute of being in the image of God (imago Dei) is not merely bestowed by God and retained by humans. It is what gives people special value (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9), and it is part of God’s design for human beings, who were specifically created to represent God on Earth and reflect many of His attributes.

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY AND ITS CAUSE?

Posted on by

Many critics of the Christian faith have no interest whatsoever in an open-minded exploration of God’s grace. They simply take great satisfaction in annoying believers, because our witness and commitment to the Good News disturbs the natural person. Their aim is thus to eradicate that conviction by pressuring believers to change their minds and accept an impotent version that will alleviate conviction. To some degree, it’s working. Progressive Christianity is a product of cultural compromise, particularly accepting evolution, which relegates God’s Word to myth and fables and the Christian faith to a mere option of self-help. They no longer believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God but just a moral example for us to follow.

A Christian’s journey towards victorious faith must now overcome the mirage of mind games played in culture. It’s necessary for those who know “on whom (they) have believed and (are) convinced that He is able to guard what has been entrusted” (2 Tim. 1:12) to realise what they have with God’s inerrant Word. Our message is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit… and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The Christian has the powerful message of grace that by the Spirit is convicting “the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Pushbacks at every level are reactions to the convicting nature of this spiritual dynamic.

The message of God’s grace and repentance in Jesus is an all or nothing proposition that provokes backlash and antagonism. “If the world hates you,” said Jesus, “know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). That is part of why Christians are to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). Believers who represent the message of grace and repentance often become the target of a natural person’s frustrations and rebellion against God.

There are definitely times when honest and fair questions require answers. Conversations should be welcomed, particularly on evolution, as many resources are available from http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org to support creation versus evolution. The Lord Jesus was right that love and mercy should be hallmarks of Christian reaction. Nevertheless, Christians should begin to take our trust in God’s grace much more seriously and realise that cultural scepticism is built on “sinking sand” by flawed human beings.

MUTATIONS ARE KILLING US NOT CREATING US!

Posted on by

Dr Don Batten of Creation Ministries is well qualified to discuss this subject, and he clearly demonstrates that mutations are a loss of information. Mutations do not add information to the genome, so they cannot create “you from goo.” The video is not long, so make sure you use it to challenge your evolutionary-minded family members and friends.

All of the evidence of DNA (complex information) and the genome point to an intelligent designer. Random chance is not a reasonable explanation for the complexity and design evident in human life. There is a God and He reveals Himself to us in many ways but the most revealing way was through His Son Jesus Christ.

““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

PhD SCIENTIST ON CHEMICAL EVOLUTION

Posted on by

Don Batten interviews professional scientist Dr Royal Truman as reported in Creation Magazine, Volume 46. Issue 3, 2024

Royal Truman has bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and computer science from State University New York, Buffalo, an MBA from the University of Michigan, a PhD in organic chemistry from Michigan State University, plus post-doctoral studies in bioinformatics from the universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim, Germany. He has many professional certifications in such fields as cyber security, supply chain logistics, cloud technology, and project management. He has worked for 40 years for the largest chemical company in the world.

Royal is married to Petra, who worked as a lawyer, and later as a full-time homemaker. They have two grown sons; one has a law degree and the other is working on a PhD in computer science. Raised by missionary parents in Chile, training in North America, and then working in Germany, Dr Truman speaks five languages. He also plays multiple musical instruments and is very artistic (oil and acrylic painting, drawings, ink, and watercolour). He says his home looks like a museum. He trained in several forms of martial arts, attaining a brown belt in a North Korean style of Taekwondo. There is a lake in front of their house in Germany where Royal swims year-round (ice swimming!). He is one interesting guy!

Dr Truman shared, throughout my career, I worked with very clever and conscientious scientists who accepted evolution as a given, although this was not related to their own scientific training. But nothing I learned about evolution made any sense based on my own areas of expertise. But how could such clever people all be wrong? What was I overlooking? To find out, Royal devoted more than 35 years to learning all he could about molecular biology and systems biology. This is the chemistry of the machinery of life (proteins, nucleic acids, etc.). This included taking formal courses in bioinformatics. Such training assisted in analyzing the vast amounts of complex data involved—for example, the human DNA has over 3 billion ‘letters’. Even a relatively simple protein requires hundreds of DNA letters that specify how to make it.

First, Dr Truman had to understand the biological reality that needs explaining. What is it about the simplest living things that needs to be explained? For example, all self-reproducing (‘living’) cells have a set of very complex chemical units called tRNAs (‘transfer RNAs’). There must be at least one unique tRNA for each of the ~20 amino acids that make up proteins.

These tRNAs are essential for the manufacture of all proteins since the cell’s machinery uses them to interpret from the DNA code which amino acid is to be used at each position of a protein. But these are just a small component of the genetic equipment needed! Dr Truman researched the biochemical source of tRNAs and noted that their manufacture was coded for on DNA and they must be extracted by special proteins. But these proteins could only exist if functional tRNAs were already available to help decode instructions for their manufacture. He concluded that tRNAs and proteins could never arise by any natural (evolutionary) process.

Irreducible complexity describes biological systems with multiple interacting parts that would not function if any one of the parts was removed. Dr Truman discovered many examples of ‘irreducible complexity’. These include dozens of ‘molecular machines’, such as polymerases, helicases, isomerases, ribosomes, and ATP synthase. Each of these is a stupendously complex and efficient ‘nano-machine’, f lawlessly repeating indispensable services over and over. But not only is each one irreducibly complex, all these, and much more, must be present together for cells to function, to reproduce. Dr Truman comments, “How are all these multiple irreducibly complex components to come together without a Planner?”

Royal discovered that cells share properties with computers—he published two papers on this. Display footnote number:2 He is uniquely qualified to understand this, having been responsible for several years to identify all new computing technologies (hardware and software) which could someday be applicable to the chemical industry. This underlined again how cells are designed; they could not have come about by a natural (evolutionary) process.

Dr Truman shares how “I quickly discovered that evolutionary explanations were only vague imaginings; there was nothing solid enough to research, and the speculative narratives were easy to disprove.”

The origin of life?

Being a chemist, it was almost inevitable that Royal should examine origin of life (OoL) publications. He read hundreds of chemical publications that tried to explain the OoL and concluded that “all were nothing but wishful thinking.”

For example, thousands of complex proteins are needed for cells to work. However, not one of even the simplest proteins could be created naturally. Some of the problems he noted are: 1. Racemization, 2. Side-chain reactions, 3. Reactions with other chemicals, 4. Wrong proportions of biologically relevant amino acids, 5. Obtaining long chains in water,

If simply obtaining a long, linear random amino acid polymer (i.e., a ‘protein’) isn’t possible, how in the world were thousands of different proteins, each having the correct sequence of amino acids, supposed to have arisen? Natural selection can’t operate until you already have something that makes copies of itself.

According to Dr Truman: Origin of Life research is spinning its wheels. Experiments are designed with a specific goal in mind and the laboratory setup is never plausible; it never mimics something feasible in nature. When chemists such as I evaluate the results, we find them to be inconsistent with the claim that life made itself by natural processes.

Royal noted that there is no feasible path from simple chemicals obtained naturally to a biological cell controlled by DNA-encoded information.

Instead, there is an assumption that ‘life’ can be defined as any process involving some form of chemical replication and then with enough time a cell must inevitably arise. This has nothing to do with science; is it pure speculation with no mechanistic basis.

I have concluded that no chemist ever became an evolutionist because this is what the data showed them. Instead, clever people decided to believe in evolution, and then went about cherry-picking the data to support this notion and ignoring what is inconvenient.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR

Posted on by

Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world.

You will need over an hour to watch this video but I suggest you will be glad you did. In particular, I like John Lennox for his pearls of wisdom, and rating the three men as to what gems I learned, it would be 1. John Lennox, 2. Stephen Meyer and 3. Michael Behe. I need to watch the video again at least once more, to make notes, of the information I will incorporate to improve my argument for the God of the Bible’s existence.

A NATION WITHOUT FAITH IS A NATION WITHOUT HOPE

Posted on by

Fifty-three years back, in 1971, 87 percent of Australians identified as religious, and overwhelmingly as Christian. Now it’s just 54 percent. It is a similar decline as in the U.S.A.

And here’s the really striking feature: only five years ago, 52 percent of us identified as Christian. Now it’s just 44 percent. That’s an almost 20 percent decline in Christian belief in just five years. Some of that will be people who don’t worship regularly anymore and feel fraudulent in ticking the religion box even though their faith is still with them. For others, it represents a clear rejection of organised religion. Five years back, only 30 percent of Australians identified as having no religion. Now it’s 39 percent. That’s a 30 percent leap in just five years, making no religion the fastest-growing “creed” in the country. Why does that matter? It may not be fashionable to say so but in reality, our culture is built on a Christian foundation. Our democracy, for instance, rests on the notion that everyone is equal in rights and dignity, something that’s come down to us through the Christian gospels. Elsewhere in our culture, our justice system rests on the notion that we should treat others as we’d be treated; again that comes from Christian teaching. Our sense of community too rests on the notion that we should “love our neighbours as we love ourselves”. It’s a commandment at the heart of our volunteerism and philanthropy. Then there’s the significant matter of what religious organisations contribute to social uplift. Beyond a values-based education, they run many health and community services. To reference the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church, as an example, there are 80 Catholic hospitals across the country and 25,000-plus aged-care beds in Catholic nursing homes, as well as social welfare bodies and charities with a broader Christian inspiration – from the Salvation Army to the St Vincent de Paul Society, to Anglicare, to Lifeline, and Alcoholics Anonymous – all organisations that are generally thought to be serving Australians well, however, discredited the zeitgeist might find the faith which inspires their good works.

When people believe there is no God then of course they make up their own rules. It is survival of the fittest and truth is what you make it. Your truth may not be my truth. Gay marriage, homosexuality, and transgenderism are just the start. The only true reality is built on the first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created”. Our Creator has given us the truth about the origins of our Cosmos and humankind. If you want answers to the big questions: Who Am I? then there is only one place to go God’s Word. Can I also suggest Martyn Isles book Who Am I?

Evolution and billions of years is the God of this World, Satan’s, greatest strategy. He has convinced even our learned scholars, our educators that the Cosmos did not need a Creator. It is absurd as nothing comes from nothing. This highly complex universe with its laws and interconnectedness had to have an omnipotent designer but, our learned scholars cannot countenance the supernatural yet, it is the obvious, in fact, the only possible solution.

If you want proof of creation versus evolution and the Biblical account of creation, then go to http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.creation.com.

Source of much of this information: Peta Credlin is the host of Credlin on Sky News.

EVIDENCE FOR A UNIVERSE THAT WAS CREATED

Posted on by

When the world’s most powerful space telescope, James Webb Space Telescope was launched in 2021, its “primary aim” was to “shed light on our cosmic origins”. Its findings have been eagerly anticipated.

The images coming back contradict secular expectations … Very early in the Big Bang, we should not see highly structured galaxies at the edge of the universe. Yet, that is what the James Webb Space Telescope is showing us.

You will be glad you watched this video with Dr. Mark Harwood as he explains the consequences of what the James Webb Space Telescope reveals.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH

Posted on by

In this video clip “Mountains After the Flood”, geologists John Whitmore and Andrew Snelling talk with Del Tackett about the importance of their research project in the Grand Canyon. They discuss creation science and why it provides answers to evidence not found in the conventional scientific paradigm. This four-minute segment shows convincing evidence that the Coconino Sandstone was laid down by a catastrophic flood. This formation spreads across the Colorado Plateau province of the United States, including northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Make sure you watch the entire film to see the fascinating results of their research.